Specifically, Gordon Wood's Empire of Liberty and Howe's What Hath God Wrought? I'm about halfway through the former and Wood seems markedly sympathetic to the Jeffersonian cause. Enough to make me wonder, not enough to make me question whether he's telling only part of the story. Thank you!
In general, I think they're fantastic works by well-respected scholars.
Like any giant synthesis, these works will shape an argument to the scholar's views. And of course, like all scholarship, those views presented are shaped by the times in which the works was written, the extant historiography, the historian's own worldview, and a slew of other factors.
For example, looking at Howe, he is speaking to the older view advanced by Sellers, et al (and robustly maintained today by, among many others, Sean Wilentz) that the Jacksonian period should be seen as a 'market revolution,' where the change from a more agrarian economy to a more liberally-based market economy was brought about by a sort of corporate-government cooperation in infrastructure expansion. Sellers argues that this economic growth was counter to the semi-subsistence existence of many communities. In Sellers' view, Jackson's victory was a result of a sort of proto-populist uprising against this corporatist turn.
Howe sees the growth of infrastructure and American capitalism as rooted in the work of John Quincy Adams. JQA fostered a lot of internal improvement and communications changes (see John Larson, Internal Improvement) and Howe sees these changes as an expansion of liberty, as an enabler of economic growth, and as a driving force behind the expansion of the country. Jackson was not a democratic hero so much as he was the lucky recipient of votes from people who hadn't really been able to vote before -- all because of JQA's internal improvements.
As you can see, two very different approaches. Sellers' view, while published ~1990, is a product of the more-radical 60s, that capitalism is more-or-less bad, and that without gov't support, it would have either not existed or would have been quite different than we know today. Howe's view is a much more conservative take, arguing that capitalism is much more natural than imposed and that gov't and industry can and should work together in order to foster economic growth. This is quite clearly a product of more recent days.
Short story made interminably long, yes, read the Oxford books. They are really good. But pay attention to what you're reading. There is no "gospel truth" when it comes to historiography, only interpretations shaped by many things.
/u/Cosmic_Charlie gives a very fair response; quite objective. I'd like to add my take on the series as I've experienced it. Primarily, I'm a First World War historian, but I do branch out into other areas of military history when it benefits my research or just for my own interest. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, the Oxford volume concerning the American Civil War is a very good way of understanding, in a broad sense, the nature of that conflict. I've made reference to it in my writing when making comparisons in the notion of "total war" and "industrialised war" between ACW and WWI. Like my learned friend Charlie, I would venture the opinion that no event in history can be understood in as an objective a light possible by consulting a single source. McPherson's narrative is engaging and makes for pleasant reading, but if I were to invest in a dedicated study of the ACW (an idea that does appeal to me now that I think of it) I would scour his bibliography to find the source material he pulled from and go from there to investigate the subject in more depth.